That was your point, which had to do with what was possible in Europe for I2a and Near Eastern farmers. Since you made the Spanish/Native-alliance-versus-the- Aztecs analogy, it seemed only right to carry it through to its logical conclusion. The Spanish/Native alliance finished the Aztecs off as a power. The Aztecs never recovered. R1b, on the other hand, came to be the dominant y haplogroup of western Europe. In that way, R1b is much more like the Spanish in your analogy than like the Aztecs.

No, my point was that it is nothing strange for some tribes to ally themselves with incoming conquerors against other tribes, and I provided the Aztecs analogy. Now, as for a recovery of Q1a3a, it has only been 500 years since the conquest of the Americas, Q1a3a survives in great numbers in the Andean regions, where due to lack of oxygen because of altitude, Spaniards couldn’t really do much in those regions. There you have it, that is the concept of a haplogroup taking refuge in an area that is appropriate. The putative expansion of R1b takes place circa 3000 BC-2500 BC, that is from 2500-3000 years after the farmers arrived in Europe, so I think it is far too soon to make any conclusions as if Q1a3a never recovered or not, maybe it won’t in the Aztecs, but it is still very well alive in the Quechuas.

Could there have been such an alliance against R1b? Anything is possible. Did it work? Evidently not; but if such an alliance against R1b did exist and was strong enough to drive R1b into hiding, it should have worked. The ultimate result - R1b dominant in western Europe - is a pretty good indication that no such alliance existed, and that R1b was never driven into hiding by agriculturists.

Again, you are jumping into conclusions far too soon, we are talking about a period of 2000-3000 years of R1b existence in the mountains of Western Europe, the conquest of the Americas has shown that it is possible for native haplogroups to survive in far greater numbers in regions that are hostile to incoming conquerors.

Besides that, the farmers would have had technological advantages over the hunter-gatherers. Isn't that part of your argument? That the farmers drove the poor, benighted R1b hunter-gatherers into hiding?

I don’t know if they were poor, or benighted, or what does that have to do with anything?

Y-linked markers are suitable loci to analyze genetic diversity of human populations, offering knowledge of medical, forensic, and anthropological interest. In a population sample of 206 Mestizo males from western Mexico, we analyzed two binary loci (M3 and YAP) and six Y-STRs, adding to the analysis data of Mexican Mestizos and Amerindians, and relevant worldwide populations. The paternal ancestry estimated in western Mexican-Mestizos was mainly European (60-64%), followed by Amerindian (25-21%), and African ( approximately 15%). Significant genetic heterogeneity was established between Mestizos from western (Jalisco State) and northern Mexico (Chihuahua State) compared with Mexicans from the center of the Mexican Republic (Mexico City), this attributable to higher European ancestry in western and northern than in central and southeast populations, where higher Amerindian ancestry was inferred. This genetic structure has important implications for medical and forensic purposes. Two different Pre-Hispanic evolutionary processes were evident. In Mesoamerican region, populations presented higher migration rate (N(m) = 24.76), promoting genetic homogeneity. Conversely, isolated groups from the mountains and canyons of the Western and Northern Sierra Madre (Huichols and Tarahumaras, respectively) presented a lower migration rate (N(m) = 10.27) and stronger genetic differentiation processes (founder effect and/or genetic drift), constituting a Pre-Hispanic population substructure. Additionally, Tarahumaras presented a higher frequency of Y-chromosomes without Q3 that was explained by paternal European admixture (15%) and, more interestingly, by a distinctive Native-American ancestry. In Purepechas, a special admixture process involving preferential integration of non-Purepecha women in their communities could explain contrary genetic evidences (autosomal vs. Y-chromosome) for this tribe.

Mestizos currently represent most of the Mexican population (>90%); they are defined as individuals born in the country having a Spanish-derived last name, with family antecedents of Mexican ancestors back at least to the third generation. Mestizos are result of 500 years of admixture mainly among Spaniards, Amerindians, and African slaves. Consequently, a complex genetic pattern has been generated throughout the country that has been scarcely studied from the paternal point of view. This fact is important, taking into account that gene flow toward the New World comprised largely males. We analyzed the population structure and paternal admixture of present-day Mexican-Mestizo populations based on Y-STRs. We genotyped at least 12 Y-STRs in DNA samples of 986 males from five states: Aguascalientes (n = 293); Jalisco (n = 185); Guanajuato (n = 168); Chiapas (n = 170); and Yucatán (n = 170). AmpFlSTR Y-filer and Powerplex-Y(R) kits were used. Inclusion of North and Central Y-STR databases in the analyses allowed obtaining a Y-STR variability landscape from Mexico. Results confirmed the population differentiation gradient previously noted in Mestizos with SNPs and autosomal STRs throughout the Mexican territory: European ancestry increments to the Northwest and, correspondingly, Amerindian ancestry increments to the Center and Southeast. In addition, SAMOVA test and Autocorrelation Index for DNA Analysis autocorrelogram plot suggested preferential gene flow of males with neighboring populations in agreement with the isolation-by-distance model. Results are important for disease-risk studies (principally male-related) and for human identification purposes, because Y-STR databases are not available on the majority of Mexican-Mestizo populations.

Those reports don't actually say the Amerindian y-dna element is the most frequent anywhere among Mexican Mestizos. They say the Amerindian component is a larger part of the picture in the center and southeast than it is in the north and west, but not that it surpasses the European component. It may do that, but the abstracts don't actually say that is the case.

From what I have seen of dna projects in which Latin Americans are involved, European y haplogroups consistently surpass Amerindian y haplogroups. You could argue that Latin Americans with Amerindian y-dna don't tend to order commercial y-dna tests, but I don't know how you would prove that.

You are asking us to believe that R1b hid out in the mountains of western Europe for 2000-3000 years before somehow managing to overcome the agriculturists who had driven them there in the first place and going on to become the dominant y haplogroup in western Europe.

No need for me to muster much of an argument against that! I'll let it stand on its own.

Those reports don't actually say the Amerindian y-dna element is the most frequent anywhere among Mexican Mestizos. They say the Amerindian component is a larger part of the picture in the center and southeast than it is in the north and west, but not that it surpasses the European component. It may do that, but the abstracts don't actually say that is the case.

Well here you go then:

Figure-1 from one of the studies you posted the one by Salazar-Flores.et.al.2010

I think it is very clear that Amerindian Y-DNA is the majority in Chiapas (n=170), Yucatan (n=170) and Mexico City (n=357), it is still significant(i.e. 47%) in Guanajato(n=168). So now you know that it does surpass the European component in some regions of Mexico.

From what I have seen of dna projects in which Latin Americans are involved, European y haplogroups consistently surpass Amerindian y haplogroups. You could argue that Latin Americans with Amerindian y-dna don't tend to order commercial y-dna tests, but I don't know how you would prove that.

Latin America is a very (I can’t stretch that enough) very diverse region, and while European Y haplogroups predominate in countries like Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, Chile, and the Caribbean, it doesn’t in certain regions of Central and South America, which is what I have been saying all along. So I highly doubt you would get any reasonable picture of the haplogroups distribution in Latin America, when you have variation going from one province to the other within countries.

You are asking us to believe that R1b hid out in the mountains of western Europe for 2000-3000 years before somehow managing to overcome the agriculturists who had driven them there in the first place and going on to become the dominant y haplogroup in western Europe.

No need for me to muster much of an argument against that! I'll let it stand on its own.

I’m not asking anything, you believe whatever fits your boat. I simply postulated a hypothesis; I have yet to see anything that shows an expanding pattern from the East, it isn’t there. Frankly I am tired of repeating myself over and over again If you don’t buy into it, good for you, let’s wait and see what aDNA has to say. Very soon we will have results published from the Yamnaya culture, and from Anatolia, one would expect for R1b to make a big appearance in the region if one were to follow your hypotheses.

Man, you'll continue arguing no matter what. Does the fact that Amerindian y-dna predominates in certain regions of Latin America change the fact that European y-dna predominates overall, which is what I asserted in the first place? Even among Mestizos in Mexico, as the table you posted shows, European y-dna is over 50% of the total.

The fact remains that in a very short time period European y haplogroups have largely replaced Amerindian y haplogroups throughout Latin America. Looking at the Americas as a whole, the replacement of Amerindian y-dna by European y-dna is absolutely startling, especially given the rapidity with which that change has occurred.

Back to Eurasia now. The overall diversity of M269 indicates movement from east to west (or SE to NW), and the SNP trail indicates the same thing, with M269 clades diverging from earlier, upstream nodes progressively as one moves from east to west (based on an eastern origin for R-M343 and, subsequently, R-M269). The eddyings and meanderings of various clades of R-M269 once they reached Europe do not alter those basic facts, despite your attempts to use them to cloud the picture and argue that R1b-whatever in Europe ran from the Near Eastern agro-pastoralists, hid in the mountains for 2000-3000 years, and only then emerged to overwhelm the farmers and become the dominant y haplogroup in western Europe. You exaggerate the importance of the Basques and of Iberia, to the neglect of the vast majority of European peoples and of the European peninsula as a whole.

If it turns out you are right, which I strongly doubt, then fine. We'll all be the wiser, and we'll congratulate you on your foresight and perspicacity.

Man, you'll continue arguing no matter what. Does the fact that Amerindian y-dna predominates in certain regions of Latin America change the fact that European y-dna predominates overall, which is what I asserted in the first place? Even among Mestizos in Mexico, as the table you posted shows, European y-dna is over 50% of the total.

The fact remains that in a very short time period European y haplogroups have largely replaced Amerindian y haplogroups throughout Latin America. Looking at the Americas as a whole, the replacement of Amerindian y-dna by European y-dna is absolutely startling, especially given the rapidity with which that change has occurred.

Well I’m simply defending my initial statement which was:

” Moreover, last I checked haplogroup Q1a3a reaches frequencies of up to 85% in Central and South America”

Which I then modified a bit to:

"Moreover, last I checked haplogroup Q1a3a reaches frequencies of up to 85% in certain regions of Central and South America."

Chihuahua (n=326) has 16% Amerindian Y-DNA haplogroups or 52 haplotypes, it has 85% European Y-DNA haplogroups or 277 haplotypes.

Aguascaliente (n=293) has 27% Amerindian Y-DNA haplogroups or 79 haplotypes, it has 69% European Y-DNA haplogroups or 202 haplotypes.

Jalisco (n=185) has 28% Amerindian Y-DNA haplogroups or 52 haplotypes, it has 67% European Y-DNA haplogroups or 124 haplotypes.

Guanajato (n=168) has 48% Amerindian Y-DNA haplogroups or 81 haplotypes, it has 50% European Y-DNA haplogroups or 84 haplotypes.

Mexico City (n=357) has 50% Amerindian Y-DNA haplogroups or 179 haplotypes, it has 46% European Y-DNA haplogroups or 164 haplotypes.

Chiapas (n=170) has 63% Amerindian Y-DNA haplogroups or 107 haplotypes, it has 36% European Y-DNA haplogroups or 61 haplotypes.

Yucatan (n=170) has 55% Amerindian Y-DNA haplogroups or 59 haplotypes, it has 39% European Y-DNA haplogroups or 66 haplotypes.

So total sample size 1669, total Amerindian haplotypes 609, that gives a total of 36.49% Amerindian Y-DNA Haplogroups amongst the total sample size. In contrast total European haplotypes 978, that gives a total of 58.60% European Y-DNA Haplogroups amongst the total sample size. Now just a couple of things, first off, these are overall percentage of European lineages, not just R1b, and second of all, the regions where the Amerindian Y-DNA haplogroups prevail in Mexico, that is Mexico City, Chiapas, Yucatan, are the most densely populated regions of Mexico, so all in all, the Amerindian haplogroups would likely prevail in the Mexican population.

Back to Eurasia now. The overall diversity of M269 indicates movement from east to west (or SE to NW), and the SNP trail indicates the same thing, with M269 clades diverging from earlier, upstream nodes progressively as one moves from east to west (based on an eastern origin for R-M343 and, subsequently, R-M269).

Well then it shouldn’t be hard for you to show me a diversity map were it shows the overall diversity of M269 decreases from East to West or from SE to NW. If you can’t provide the data, then your assumption is just based on wishful thinking. Also, there is nothing upstream about the West Asian clades, they are simply derived from R1b-L23 just as the European ones are, the only differences is that they haven’t tested for any particular SNPs, which I am sure exists in there, there is nothing ancestral about the West Asian clades. Moreover, if you want to get technical in that respect there is a relative abundance of R1b-M269(xL23) in the Balkans compared to West Asia, not to mention that R1b-M269(xL23) is almost completely lacking in the Caucasus.

The eddyings and meanderings of various clades of R-M269 once they reached Europe do not alter those basic facts, despite your attempts to use them to cloud the picture and argue that R1b-whatever in Europe ran from the Near Eastern agro-pastoralists, hid in the mountains for 2000-3000 years, and only then emerged to overwhelm the farmers and become the dominant y haplogroup in western Europe.

Yes, you can criticize my hypothesis, and call it all sorts of adjectives that please your mind, the fact is, I have brought in data that support my hypothesis, I have yet to see the same from you.

You exaggerate the importance of the Basques and of Iberia, to the neglect of the vast majority of European peoples and of the European peninsula as a whole.

No, is just too bad for you that I don’t let you ignore the Iberian Peninsula, and more specifically the Basques as you so happily want to, to paint every single Western European with the Indo-European broach. Whether you like it or not, they posit a problem to the R1b-L11+=PIE hypothesis, and ignoring something isn’t the right way to go about it, and before you jump in and claim that I am ignoring the IE of all other Europeans, I’m not, I clearly stated that I believe that if R1b-L21, and R1b-U152 were born in Indo-European speaking areas and expanded from there, it solves the problem of nonIE speaking vs.IE speaking.

No, is just too bad for you that I don’t let you ignore the Iberian Peninsula, and more specifically the Basques as you so happily want to, to paint every single Western European with the Indo-European broach. Whether you like it or not, they posit a problem to the R1b-L11+=PIE hypothesis, and ignoring something isn’t the right way to go about it, and before you jump in and claim that I am ignoring the IE of all other Europeans, I’m not, I clearly stated that I believe that if R1b-L21, and R1b-U152 were born in Indo-European speaking areas and expanded from there, it solves the problem of nonIE speaking vs.IE speaking.

...or the problem could be solved if it was just DF27 that was born in a non-Indo-European speaking area. Although still unlikely to me.

Back to Eurasia now. The overall diversity of M269 indicates movement from east to west (or SE to NW), and the SNP trail indicates the same thing, with M269 clades diverging from earlier, upstream nodes progressively as one moves from east to west (based on an eastern origin for R-M343 and, subsequently, R-M269).

Well then it shouldn’t be hard for you to show me a diversity map were it shows the overall diversity of M269 decreases from East to West or from SE to NW. If you can’t provide the data, then your assumption is just based on wishful thinking. Also, there is nothing upstream about the West Asian clades, they are simply derived from R1b-L23 just as the European ones are, the only differences is that they haven’t tested for any particular SNPs, which I am sure exists in there, there is nothing ancestral about the West Asian clades. Moreover, if you want to get technical in that respect there is a relative abundance of R1b-M269(xL23) in the Balkans compared to West Asia, not to mention that R1b-M269(xL23) is almost completely lacking in the Caucasus.

Looking at the pre-m269 level in Eurasia, most basal forms are outside of Europe. V88 and L389 (mostly M269+) are parallel and both are found in and out of Europe. L389 is ancestral to M335 and P297 (most European R1b). However, when it comes to L389xM335xP297, only 1 sample is found in a European descended person(Humphreys-US). The other 5 are from India, Bahrain, Uzbekistan, Iraq, and Armenia. I get a .568 variance on 50 markers for them.

More testing needs to be done, but I would give the edge to Asia for now. Humphreys could be an outlier to the general trend. I could not find any R1b P25 ** in Europe. It is all L389 (P297 or M335) or V88. The V88 has much lower variance than the above Asian M335-,P297- though. Now when you combine the Balkan M269, there is a SE to NW pattern by SNP.

I dont think Jean L is saying all R1b is not Asian though. I think Jean's jean accepts that M269 and L23 happened somewhere in the east. Jean is not apparently in the Ice Age refuge gang as far as I can see. Its more of a Balkans M269 or L23* getting shunted in multiple directions. IF the idea is that beaker and perhaps R1b was indo-europeanised in the Balkans or thereabouts then the model that some, perhaps a vanguard being shunted west had excaped being indo-europeanised by heading west ahead of the others (DF27) is not a crazy one IMO.

However, that is not to say that I think it is easy to agree with. I see a number of problems with this:

1. DF27, U152 and L21 do share an extremely close ancestor in P312 that makes it hard to imagine they had different languages. There is an incredible consistancy of variance dating which makes it hard to believe DF27 has lost loads of variance but somehow just by chance come out with the same variance of U152 and L21.

2. On the other hand DF27 has been observed to be peculiar in its widespread scattering.

3.I have problems correlate a model of DF27 as non-IE when western Iberia (which also has very early beaker dates) seems to have had at least 2 IE languages and no evidence of non-IE. How was western Iberia IE-ised? What other clades or haplogroups provide an explanation other than DF27 for the IE-isation of western Iberia?

4. Frequency should not be the basis of an arguement on origin and direction of spread IMO. I personally tend to think L11 simply is lower where pre-existing population was higher and also possibly L11 is higher on wetter more pastoral lands, again areas where pre-copper age settlement may have been lower. In additons if R1b was associated with Celtic lineages then the fall of the Celts from freedom and power would tend to drive them into the mountains and Atlantic fringes.

5. I have huge problems seeing DF27 in Iberia as some pre-beaker group shunted west into the Pyrennees in later Neolithic times ahead of beakers. I just see no evidence of this at all.

Well then it shouldn’t be hard for you to show me a diversity map were it shows the overall diversity of M269 decreases from East to West or from SE to NW. If you can’t provide the data, then your assumption is just based on wishful thinking.

Also, there is nothing upstream about the West Asian clades, they are simply derived from R1b-L23 just as the European ones are, the only differences is that they haven’t tested for any particular SNPs, which I am sure exists in there, there is nothing ancestral about the West Asian clades. Moreover, if you want to get technical in that respect there is a relative abundance of R1b-M269(xL23) in the Balkans compared to West Asia, not to mention that R1b-M269(xL23) is almost completely lacking in the Caucasus.

They are upstream in the sense that the consensus of opinion is that R-M269 was probably born in SW Asia and moved north and west into and through Europe. That is why the SNP trail diverges at nodes that are upstream of the more westerly clades of R-M269 as one moves from east to west or southeast to northwest. As one moves west and north into and across Europe, there is a progress of turns at earlier SNP intersections in the east and later intersections as one moves west.

That does not mean those men whose y-dna diverged at nodes that are upstream of the more westerly clades of R-M269 don't have still later turns at intersections of their own. It just means that, relative to the western subclades of M269, the men farther east have pathways of their own, but pathways that diverged father east, and earlier (earlier relative to the more western clades).

As for the relative abundance of R-M269 (xL23) in the Balkans versus West Asia, I am not sure that is a problem, given the overall R-M269 str diversity. I wonder, too, at the number of samples available from both regions that have been SNP tested to at least that extent.

As for defending your claim relative to Latin America, which you were forced to revise after you embarrassed yourself with that Q1a-whatever frequency map, what are you defending, really? That there are some places where Amerindian y-dna still prevails? Who would argue with that? The main points were that European y-dna prevails in Latin America now, that that represents a significant population replacement accomplished with amazing rapidity, and that, therefore, the story of R1b in Europe is much much more analogous to that of the Spaniards in Latin America than it is to that of the Aztecs.

No, is just too bad for you that I don’t let you ignore the Iberian Peninsula, and more specifically the Basques as you so happily want to, to paint every single Western European with the Indo-European broach.

I don't ignore Iberia. I just to refuse to obsess over the place.

The Basques are a small ethnic minority. From what I have read, their forms of R1b (almost all P312+) are not all that diverse and so not especially ancient. They learned to speak a language that puzzles most of us, whether that language is non-IE or some archaic branch of IE, as Etchamendy claims.

We don't really know where the Basques came from or when, and we don't know how or when they acquired Euskara or from whom.

Given all of the unknowns relative to the Basques, the relative youth of their haplotypes, and perhaps of their tenure in and about the Pyrenees, why should they be made the measure and stumbling block of all R-M269 research?

It was understandable when the Basques were thought to be some sort of Paleolithic relic population, but it just doesn't make sense now.

Even the high frequency of LP among the Basques points to an origin much father east, where LP is believed to have originated.

Whether you like it or not, they posit a problem to the R1b-L11+=PIE hypothesis, and ignoring something isn’t the right way to go about it, and before you jump in and claim that I am ignoring the IE of all other Europeans, I’m not, I clearly stated that I believe that if R1b-L21, and R1b-U152 were born in Indo-European speaking areas and expanded from there, it solves the problem of nonIE speaking vs.IE speaking.

I am not sure R-L11=Indo-European. It's a possibility, that's all.

It's possible that Basque is the modern descendant of a language that was part of an archaic branch of Indo-Hittite (the immediate ancestor of PIE and Anatolian, as well). That wouldn't surprise me at all if it were true.

But whether that is true or not, we don't know how the Basques acquired that language, when, or from whom. Because they speak it now does not mean that it originated with them or with P312 men in general. Most P312 men don't speak Euskara or anything even like Euskara. What gives Euskara precedence over the languages spoken by the overwhelming majority of P312 men? What? Its antiquity? What makes it more ancient at its root than the other languages of Europe? What proves that P312 men were speaking something like it before something else?

No, is just too bad for you that I don’t let you ignore the Iberian Peninsula, and more specifically the Basques as you so happily want to, to paint every single Western European with the Indo-European broach.

I don't ignore Iberia. I just to refuse to obsess over the place.

This is just an opinion so I'm not going to develop a set of evidence to back it up. My speculation is that ultimately we will see that DF27 is to Iberia as what L21 is to the Isles. Iberia was a rich target for DF27. It may originated very near Iberia, just as L21 may have originated very near the Isles.

I can’t see anything, it is asking me to log into Google, and when I do, it is asking me to create a Gmail account, so could you please provide another link that doesn’t require the creation of a Gmail account.

They are upstream in the sense that the consensus of opinion is that R-M269 was probably born in SW Asia and moved north and west into and through Europe. That is why the SNP trail diverges at nodes that are upstream of the more westerly clades of R-M269 as one moves from east to west or southeast to northwest. As one moves west and north into and across Europe, there is a progress of turns at earlier SNP intersections in the east and later intersections as one moves west.

Not really, L51, L150 are mostly found in the West, whereas there is some significant L23xL51 presence in certain areas in the West too, last I checked Switzerland according to Myres was way up there in the presence of L23xL51. So just like variance, there is no progress, no smooth cline, or even a cline.

That does not mean those men whose y-dna diverged at nodes that are upstream of the more westerly clades of R-M269 don't have still later turns at intersections of their own. It just means that, relative to the western subclades of M269, the men farther east have pathways of their own, but pathways that diverged father east, and earlier (earlier relative to the more western clades).

No it doesn’t mean anything, a very likely scenario would have men living in Western Europe with the L51 SNP already, whereas L23xL51 men were still living in West Asia.

As for the relative abundance of R-M269 (xL23) in the Balkans versus West Asia, I am not sure that is a problem, given the overall R-M269 str diversity. I wonder, too, at the number of samples available from both regions that have been SNP tested to at least that extent.

Well let put it this way, R1b-M269(xL23) is almost nonexistent in the Caucasus, it has somewhat of a modest frequency in Anatolia, but it is far more frequent in the Western Balkans. Everything comes from Table-S4 of Myres.et.al.2010, so that you don’t have to wonder. Also, given the overall R-M269 str diversity....what??

As for defending your claim relative to Latin America, which you were forced to revise after you embarrassed yourself with that Q1a-whatever frequency map, what are you defending, really? That there are some places where Amerindian y-dna still prevails? Who would argue with that? The main points were that European y-dna prevails in Latin America now, that that represents a significant population replacement accomplished with amazing rapidity, and that, therefore, the story of R1b in Europe is much much more analogous to that of the Spaniards in Latin America than it is to that of the Aztecs.

Yes, the thing is that the regions where European y-DNA prevails, have a significant amount of European mt-DNA too. Now, last I checked R1b isn’t the majority Haplogroup in all of Europe, but only in areas that are farther away from West Asia. Coincidently such is the case in Latin America, where for the moment areas that were farther away from heavy colonization retain native y-DNA haplogroups. Also, I did not embarrass myself, I made a point and I defended it until the end, given how you constantly tried to distort the point, it was indeed frustrating. Also, you don’t know whether the situation is more analogous or not to the story of R1b, let’s stop it with the wishful thinking, I already told you that the time frame isn’t even the same.

The Basques are a small ethnic minority. From what I have read, their forms of R1b (almost all P312+) are not all that diverse and so not especially ancient. They learned to speak a language that puzzles most of us, whether that language is non-IE or some archaic branch of IE, as Etchamendy claims.

Well you do obsess quite big over the UK and L21, so let’s stop it with the pity attacks, last I check this was an R1b forum, not R1b-L21, and last I checked, simply stating that Iberia posits a problem to your IE hypothesis, is not obsessing over it.

We don't really know where the Basques came from or when, and we don't know how or when they acquired Euskara or from whom.

Yes, but reading up a bit about Basque prehistory, lithic industry, and anthropological changes helps a bit, of course if you aren’t interested, that’s another story, now don’t simply try to paint them with the same broach as everybody else, if you don’t know their history.

Given all of the unknowns relative to the Basques, the relative youth of their haplotypes, and perhaps of their tenure in and about the Pyrenees, why should they be made the measure and stumbling block of all R-M269 research?

Yeah, the relative youth issue, you should review the diversity estimates of Martinez-Cruz.et.al.2012, you might be surprised to learn that their relative TMRCA for R1b-P312+ makes them older than about every other European shown in Table-S2 from Myres.et.al.2010 S116 all portion, except for Vaclause(n=20) which gets a TMRCA of 11270 ybp, and Turkey (n=5) with a TMRCA of 13043 ybp. Just goes to show that science isn’t static and that new research brings about new discoveries.

Even the high frequency of LP among the Basques points to an origin much father east, where LP is believed to have originated.

Sorry pal, but LP frequency amongst Basque dates back to at least 5000 ybp, in fact it is the only place in Europe where it has been found. Sorry if I take hard evidence over the “ place where LP is believed to have originated”. As you the place where LP is thought to have originated has yield zero, nil, nada for LP in aDNA thus far tested.

It's possible that Basque is the modern descendant of a language that was part of an archaic branch of Indo-Hittite (the immediate ancestor of PIE and Anatolian, as well). That wouldn't surprise me at all if it were true.

But whether that is true or not, we don't know how the Basques acquired that language, when, or from whom. Because they speak it now does not mean that it originated with them or with P312 men in general. Most P312 men don't speak Euskara or anything even like Euskara. What gives Euskara precedence over the languages spoken by the overwhelming majority of P312 men? What? Its antiquity? What makes it more ancient at its root than the other languages of Europe? What proves that P312 men were speaking something like it before something else?

Most L21 men today speak English, does it mean they spoke English 2000 years ago? Or even some sort of Germanic dialect? Why should be give Celtic any preference to L21, when only a minority of L21 people speak Irish, what gives Celtic precendence over English/Germanic Languages which is spoken by the overwhelming majority of L21 men? See, I too can play the game.

No, is just too bad for you that I don’t let you ignore the Iberian Peninsula, and more specifically the Basques as you so happily want to, to paint every single Western European with the Indo-European broach.

I don't ignore Iberia. I just to refuse to obsess over the place.

This is just an opinion so I'm not going to develop a set of evidence to back it up. My speculation is that ultimately we will see that DF27 is to Iberia as what L21 is to the Isles. Iberia was a rich target for DF27. It may originated very near Iberia, just as L21 may have originated very near the Isles.

Anyway, that's just a thought.

With 44% DF27+ in Iberian 1000 Genomes samples, there is no reason to think it is speculation.

Most L21 men today speak English, does it mean they spoke English 2000 years ago? Or even some sort of Germanic dialect? Why should be give Celtic any preference to L21, when only a minority of L21 people speak Irish, what gives Irish precendence over English which is spoken by the overwhelming majority of L21 men? See, I too can play the game.

Do you mean to say that a minority language group (Germanic), carried primarily by one SNP (U106), over a long period of time changed the language (Celtic) of an earlier (L21) group and the earlier dominant group (L21) retained its high frequency even during a language replacement?

Now doesn't that sound a lot like the I2a2 (Basque) and P312 (IE) scenario I posted about a month ago?

Do you mean to say that a minority language group (Germanic), carried primarily by one SNP (U106), over a long period of time changed the language (Celtic) of an earlier (L21) group and the earlier dominant group (L21) retained its high frequency even during a language replacement?

Now doesn't that sound a lot like the I2a2 (Basque) and P312 (IE) scenario I posted about a month ago?

Well, last I checked the areas where heavily colonization of Anglo-Saxons occurred do show significant frequencies of U106, whereas the areas that acquired the language recently show very little U106, because it was a cultural diffusion. In any case, if I2a2 came later to the Pyrenees, and they spoke Basques, where did they come from then?

We disagree over many things. Best to leave it at that. Your posts are too long and erroneous. Answering them in detail is just too laborious, and you have a bad habit of defending the indefensible. So, arguing with you is a waste of time.

It's pretty clear I am not your "pal".

The link I supplied gets me right to Vince's R-M269 diversity map. I don't know of any other. But here is the image:

We disagree over many things. Best to leave it at that. Your posts are too long and erroneous. Answering them in detail is just too laborious, and you have a bad habit of defending the indefensible. So, arguing with you is a waste of time.

It's pretty clear I am not your "pal".

Ok, so my posts are long and erroneous according to you. In my opinion yours on the other hand are short and full of adjectives describing my posts, but little evidence contradicting them.

Highest variance for R1b-M269+ overall is in Central Europe, not in Turkey, so what's it going to be, Balaresque.et.al.2010 using 9 STRs, or Busby.et.al.2011 using 10 STRs and a whole lot more population samples.

Well, last I checked the areas where heavily colonization of Anglo-Saxons occurred do show significant frequencies of U106, whereas the areas that acquired the language recently show very little U106, because it was a cultural diffusion. In any case, if I2a2 came later to the Pyrenees, and they spoke Basques, where did they come from then?

The areas that are 90%+ L21 will also be speaking English within a few generations, so the analogy still holds.

I don't know which direction I2a1 went Iberia>Sardinia or Sardinia>Iberia, but between M26, mitochondrial haplogroup V, and linguistic similarities proposed between Paleo-Sardinian and Basque, I have to believe they are all connected.

The book "Paleosardo, le radici linguistiche de la Sardegna neolítica" linking Paleo-Sardinian and Basque is too expensive, but based on what the author, Catalan linguist Eduardo Blasco Ferrer, said in this interview, he knows about the genetic similarities as well:

Did you miss the variance peak in between 4 and 5 normalized longitude, the second highest peak is in between 5 and 6, then the next two peaks happen right above 2.

Like I said before, no east-west cline!!!

Dueling maps. You like Busby's. I don't. I suspect Vince's map will ultimately prove the more accurate.

I seriously doubt that Busby et al is the last word on R-M269 in Eurasia.

But, man, I don't want to continue arguing with you. You don't listen.

Busby's your pet study right now. The R1b Cave Man crowd also had their favorites a few years ago.

Things change.

I remember reading some serious criticism of Busby et al by some very competent people not long after it was published. I am not competent to evaluate Busby's methods myself, but it is worth noting that not everyone agreed with them.

It is also worth noting how odd Busby's M269 diversity findings were relative to those of other studies, like Balaresque, and relative to the diversity estimates of Vizachero, Nordtvedt, Janzen, and others.

A few years ago, everyone just "knew" that R1b spent the LGM in Iberia.

Dueling maps. You like Busby's. I don't. I suspect Vince's map will ultimately prove the more accurate.

First of all, it is not Vince’s map, it is a map made by him based on the variance reported by Balaresque.et.al.2010. Second of all, Balaresque.et.al.2010 completely ignored the Balkans, and their German sample is a bootstrapped sample, just as their Irish sample, in fact this is what they say:

Quote from: Balaresque.et.al.2010

Haplotype data were obtained for up to 20 Y-specific microsatellites [32,33]. Data from the Ysearch database (http://www.ysearch.org) for Germany (GE) and Ireland (IR) were added, together with published data for Turkey, subdivided into East, West, and Central subpopulations based on published sampling information [14]. To avoid a bias from very large samples of hgR1b1b2 (GE and IR), these were randomly subsampled to give sample sizes of 75.

Now surprise, surprise, there is no peak in Central Europe in Balaresque.et.al.

Third of all, Busby.et.al.2011 did an analysis of the Balaresque.et.al.2010 data, and this is what they said:

Quote from: Busby.et.al.2011

Re-analysis of the Balaresque dataset

Balaresque et al (2) used nine STRs, eight of which overlap with ours: they used DYS388, whilst we used DYS437 and DYS439, with the remaining eight STRs identical, and these eight were used for comparisons between the two datasets.

The influence of the Turkish populations

First, we removed the Anatolian Turkish samples. Only 10% of the Anatolian Turkish RM269 samples used in this study were R-S127 derived. Similarly, out of 91 R-M269 Y chromosomes from two populations in Turkey, Myres et al found only 8 R-S127 derived chromosomes (9%) (1). The majority of these samples then, potentially belong to a different major clade within R-M269, the R-M269(xS127) sub-haplogroup (Figure 1), whilst the remaining populations are likely to be mostly R-S127 derived. Using these data alone, there was no longer a correlation (R2=0.09, p=0.23), suggesting that the Turkish samples were crucial in causing this association (Figure S2).

Testing the variance calculations from the Irish populationBalaresque et al used haplotypes downloaded from the online Ysearch database (http://www.ysearch.org) which is a repository for genetic genealogists to upload and compare haplotypes (P. Balaresque pers. comm.). We note, however, that 17-STR haplotypes, including the 9 STRs used in Balaresque et al’s analysis, are available for 681 Irish R-M269 derived individuals in Moore et al (3), which is, in fact, the study which Balaresque et al use to estimate R-M269 frequency in Ireland. A subset of the Moore et al samples were re-analysed in the current study for SNPs downstream of R-M269, and the original haplotype data are used here to calculate variance. To test if the Ysearch haplotypes were representative of the Irish R-M269 in Moore et al, we independently re-sampled the Moore et al dataset 10,000 times, selecting sub-samples of 75 haplotypes from which we estimated the variance using the same 9 STRs used in the Balaresque et al paper. The median variance of these 10,000 repetitions was 0.354 with a 95% CI of (0.285-0.432). The lowest variance value out of the 10,000 samples was 0.242, which is still higher than the figure observed in the Balaresque et al Ysearch sample (0.208). We therefore believe our estimate of Irish R-M269 variance to be a more robust representation of the true variance than that estimated by Balaresque et al. However, we note that the positive correlation between longitude and variance is still present after removing only the Irish and retaining the Balaresque et al Turkish populations. If we replace the variance calculated by Balaresque et.al with that calculated from our repetitions, then the correlation is no longer significant, independent of whether or not we remove the Turkish samples (Figure S2).

But, man, I don't want to continue arguing with you. You don't listen.

I’m sorry, I didn’t know I was supposed to buy into your hypothesis for us to continue arguing. But you are right, I should listed more, or rather read more, than one a person offers nothing but Ad Hominems and opinionated attacks instead of refuting an argument with evidence, then it is time to stop arguing because it is a waste of time.

Busby's your pet study right now. The R1b Cave Man crowd also had their favorites a few years ago.

Nope, I don’t have a pet study, or a favorite, or anything, I'm proScience, and whatever Science brings I’ll examine it comprehensively and make my own conclusions. So unlike you, I don’t assign myself to the R1b Cave Man crowd, or the -Blue eyed Indo European crowd, but to the “wanting to know what really happened based on evidence” crowd.

Don't make false accusations, JeanL, or don't continue to make them. I have no "blue-eyed Indo-European" agenda, which construction you used to imply that I am some sort of racist or fascist. Stop that sort of idiotic nonsense or find some of my posts in which I advocate such ideas and post them to prove that I have that kind of agenda.

I want to go back and read Busby et al again. I like that report for the SNP data it provides, especially on the otherwise neglected L21 ("S145") SNP, but I have my doubts about Busby's conclusion relative to the lack of an east-west cline for M269. Busby was harshly criticized by people much more competent to judge than you or I when it was published. From my perspective, it seems strange that it arrived at conclusions so very different from those of Balaresque, other studies, and from the work of many well qualified hobbyists.

By the way, everyone thinks he is in the “wanting to know what really happened based on evidence” crowd. Just how capable each of us is of being truly objective is another matter. You haven't demonstrated any heightened ability in that regard, not that I have seen.

Don't make false accusations, JeanL, or don't continue to make them. I have no "blue-eyed Indo-European" agenda, which construction you used to imply that I am some sort of racist or fascist. Stop that sort of idiotic nonsense or find some of my posts in which I advocate such ideas and post them to prove that I have that kind of agenda.

I’m sorry, so when you throw my hypothesis in what you deem the “Paleolithic Zombie”, or the Paleolithic Cave man camp, it’s ok, yet when I make a comparison, where I set two extremes, one being the Paleolithic Cave man, the other being the “Aryan” IndoEuropean invader, and set myself in neither one, you take it offensive because you think that I’m implying some sort of agenda. Well it wasn’t my intention, but if the shoe fits….

I want to go back and read Busby et al again. I like that report for the SNP data it provides, especially on the otherwise neglected L21 ("S145") SNP, but I have my doubts about Busby's conclusion relative to the lack of an east-west cline for M269. Busby was harshly criticized by people much more competent to judge than you or I when it was published. From my perspective, it seems strange that it arrived at conclusions so very different from those of Balaresque, other studies, and from the work of many well qualified hobbyists.

No sir, if you want to make the conclusion that you deem Anatole Klyosov who is a Biochemist, or Ken Nordtvedt who is a Physicist as more competent than me, it is up to you, but don’t assume I think the same. Your appeal to authority isn’t going to work with me.

Again, what’s it with the appeal to authority, Klyosov, actually misquoted me throughout that whole “Journal” entry he had about Busby.et.al (I’m pretty darn sure is his own thing), in order to try to show that he can disprove my points, because he couldn’t on a live debate over at Dienekes. Nonetheless, Klyosov complaints are mainly because he doesn’t like the mutation rates used, because he considers mutation rates obtained using father-son pairs as useless. Second of all, he thinks that the modal obtained using the collection of all R1b-M269 which is likely going to be the modal of the majority of haplotypes, in this case likely, P312, would show a distorted view of the diversity, but in fact, contrary to what he beliefs, the modal of all R1b-M269+ in that study is far more informative in telling the distribution of variance, than say R1b-M269(xL23), or R1b-L23(xL51), which is essentially what he wanted them to do. So please, spare me the lame attempt at an appeal to authority, and let’s get on with our lives. Ken Nordtvedt’s complaint was that they used too little markers(Which was another complaint by Klyosov BTW), and that he thinks the effect they are seeing is because of the amount of markers used. However, perhaps he should have read the portion of the study where Busby.et.al. says the following:

Quote from: Busby.et.al.2011

Using BATWING on an HGDP population for which 65 Y-STRs are available, we have shown that the median estimate of TMRCA can differ by over five times when STRs are selected on the basis of the expected duration of linearity (electronic supplementary material, figure S4). While researchers take into account STR mutation rates when estimating divergence time with ASD, commonly used STRs do not have the specific attributes that allow linearity to be assumed further into the past. The majority of haplogroup dates based on such sets of STRs may therefore have been systematically underestimated.

By the way, everyone thinks he is in the “wanting to know what really happened based on evidence” crowd. Just how capable each of us is of being truly objective is another matter. You haven't demonstrated any heightened ability in that regard, not that I have seen.

Who named you universal Science Judge?? I thought you said above you weren’t competent enough in the matter, and even threw me in the same bucket. I’m sick of you just throwing “Adjectives” my way Richard, I really couldn’t care less what you think, I’m here to learn, and learning to me, doesn’t mean digesting the stuff I like, and rebuking the stuff I don’t, it means being exposed to different hypotheses, and trying to find the one that best describes a situation.

PS: There is a whole lot of stuff (i.e. Mutation rate as a function of repeat number, mutation rate as a function of age, loss linearity with time of mutation rates, calibration errors due to expressing mutations as a function of conditional generations, etc) that Anatole Klyosov completely ignores in his calculations, and I’m not the only one to bring it up. Marko H has also found the relationship between the number of repeats and the mutation rate, John Chandler has argued with Klyosov heavily about it over at Rootsweb.

PS: I don't know about Nordtvedt, but Klyosov has said more than once that he disagrees with the conclusions of Balaresque.et.al.